Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Saving For a Space Ship

Forget the property ladder. We need real housing rights for all  

Recommended Posts

Forget the property ladder. We need real housing rights for all  

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/apr/14/property-ladder-dead-campaign-housing-rights

 

Quote

......The concept of the property ladder is dead for all but a small minority of young people. It needs to be replaced with a campaign for housing rights. Homelessness should not happen in a country as wealthy as Britain. Ignore Conservative chancellors and their tendency to both claim Britain is bankrupt and that an economy is akin to a household budget.

The government can always find money for vanity yachts and Buckingham Palace repairs, and could borrow extremely cheaply to build homes.

Every person should have the right to housing and shelter, and if the market excludes people, the government should step in. Post-war, when millions of people faced living in slums, a national house building programme employed thousands to house millions, increasing life chances and expectancies as a result. In that era adequate housing was recognised as a basic right. Why not now?

In the years since, housing has become completely commodified: even social housing is seen as ripe for flogging at a profit. Continuing to prop up an over-inflated housing market while denying housing to people at the bottom of this rickety ladder is a recipe for vast social division.

 

But while traditionally, the haves have outnumbered the have nots, now very few people have the sort of housing they’d like; not in terms of wild ambition, but even to meet their basic desires. A young professional earning an above-average salary should be able to afford a mortgage on a one-bed property without help.

The market is broken. A family working full-time on minimum wage should be able to afford the rent on a council home; but again, they can’t, without state help, because the employment market is broken.

The days of the housing ladder are over: what we need now is a national conversation about housing rights for all, with a government willing to remove its fingers from its ears.

 

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Government have options, at the moment it's another infrastructure building project, essentially more flats will be built, sold to international investors. Unfortunately a spanner in the works is the credibility of this countries abilities to maintain an effecient growing economy without trade agreements, increasing costs (manufacturing & employment). That will kick start inflationary spirals, that will cause base rate rises. What happens next... well who knows in 2003 & 2008 two crashes were avoided by decreasing the base rate. That's luxury the government don't have as we approach the next economic stagnation B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Quote

Homelessness should not happen in a country as wealthy as Britain. 

The wealth of Britain seems to be a bit of a red herring although she does make a fair point about how there's always huge sums of money available for the pet projects of the elite and the establishment.  

Given the scale of the homelessness problem it seems to be more a matter of having the will to solve it rather than a matter of money.  Of course it's not made any easier with roughly 600,000 new arrivals having to be immediately housed every year but she makes no reference to that.  It's a bit surprising that the scale of the homelessness problem isn't much larger.

http://www.homeless.org.uk/connect/news/2017/mar/23/latest-homelessness-statistics-are-stark-reminder-that-change-is-crucial

Her comments about the young and not so young being priced out and the crazy house prices etc etc are pretty much spot on although as usual there's no real analysis of the causes and how to solve it all.  The problems aren't new and were also increasingly evident under NuLabour and then under the Conservative/LibDem Coalition.  So all the main parties are culpable and have done little to solve the problems and indeed with their policies have aggravated the problems apparently in self interest.

 

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background - I am a landlord.  Not overly leveraged. 

Anyway, S24 makes some sense.  Something needed to be done to redress the blatant imbalances in the totally not-at-all-free market for housing.  But there are so many BETTER things that could have been done.  A few ideas -

(1)  Security of tenure for tenants.  Make tenancy agreements 10 year minimum (no problem if you are a landlord - someone who is in the business of renting out property long term).  1 month notice for tenants AT ANY TIME.  3 months notice from landlords after 3 years so long as they are willing to pay the tenant 12 months rent as compensation.  Otherwise tenant stays for years with rental increases linked to inflation or inflation less 1% or something.

(2)  Two types of tenancy - ASTs as they are now plus a new more secure one.  20% income tax surcharge on income derived from the older non-secure ASTs.  Landlords who prefer the current tax system can retain it by giving greater security of tenure to tenants.

(3)  Cap number of properties an individual or couple can own.  I do not believe I am a threat to the financial system, but I can see how some highly leveraged big landlords are.

(4)  Tax surcharge on all rental income. 

(5)  Cap BTL lending at - say - 50% LTV whatever the banks think is prudent.

(6)  Stop council and housing association sell-offs.  Instead use taxes on the wealthy and those with unearnt income to build more social housing.

(7)  Lower stamp duty to encourage labour market flexibility.  Property taxes to make up the shortfall.  Why should an old person in a massive home pay no property tax, whereas a FTBer in an expensive area can pay 3% plus?  Fairer on everyone if the owner pays - say - 0.5% per annum (more for homes for the very rich).

(8)  I am in favour of licencing all landlords.  But IMHO the scheme should be national with all landlords on a national register, then pay per property to the local authority for enforcement.

(9)  Right to rent legislation is potentially very problematic.  I have already had to turn away a group of Romanians because one did not have a passport and could not get together alternative documentation.

Perhaps this is me being optimistic but I really do think that S24 is unfair (not that it is going to effect me massively if my calcs are right), and also potentially very destructive in terms of repossessions, house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well), disruption to tenants lives etc etc.  I think S24 may well end up being used as a short term shake up of the system, to be withdrawn when prices start collapsing (destroying banks balance sheets) and too many tenants lives are disrupted.  Having got rid of the worst over-leveraged landlords government will withdraw S24.  However by this time generation rent will be bigger, more younger people will be working in government, and the withdrawal of S24 will mean fairer and better anti-landlord policies, not fewer anti-landlord policies.  And many anti-landlord policies are not really 'anti-landlord', they're more "pro-tenant" and 'pro-society', which is not the same thing as anti-landlord.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Father Fred said:

Background - I am a landlord.  Not overly leveraged. 

Anyway, S24 makes some sense.  Something needed to be done to redress the blatant imbalances in the totally not-at-all-free market for housing.  But there are so many BETTER things that could have been done.  A few ideas -

(1)  Security of tenure for tenants.  Make tenancy agreements 10 year minimum (no problem if you are a landlord - someone who is in the business of renting out property long term).  1 month notice for tenants AT ANY TIME.  3 months notice from landlords after 3 years so long as they are willing to pay the tenant 12 months rent as compensation.  Otherwise tenant stays for years with rental increases linked to inflation or inflation less 1% or something.

(2)  Two types of tenancy - ASTs as they are now plus a new more secure one.  20% income tax surcharge on income derived from the older non-secure ASTs.  Landlords who prefer the current tax system can retain it by giving greater security of tenure to tenants.

(3)  Cap number of properties an individual or couple can own.  I do not believe I am a threat to the financial system, but I can see how some highly leveraged big landlords are.

(4)  Tax surcharge on all rental income. 

(5)  Cap BTL lending at - say - 50% LTV whatever the banks think is prudent.

(6)  Stop council and housing association sell-offs.  Instead use taxes on the wealthy and those with unearnt income to build more social housing.

(7)  Lower stamp duty to encourage labour market flexibility.  Property taxes to make up the shortfall.  Why should an old person in a massive home pay no property tax, whereas a FTBer in an expensive area can pay 3% plus?  Fairer on everyone if the owner pays - say - 0.5% per annum (more for homes for the very rich).

(8)  I am in favour of licencing all landlords.  But IMHO the scheme should be national with all landlords on a national register, then pay per property to the local authority for enforcement.

(9)  Right to rent legislation is potentially very problematic.  I have already had to turn away a group of Romanians because one did not have a passport and could not get together alternative documentation.

Perhaps this is me being optimistic but I really do think that S24 is unfair (not that it is going to effect me massively if my calcs are right), and also potentially very destructive in terms of repossessions, house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well), disruption to tenants lives etc etc.  I think S24 may well end up being used as a short term shake up of the system, to be withdrawn when prices start collapsing (destroying banks balance sheets) and too many tenants lives are disrupted.  Having got rid of the worst over-leveraged landlords government will withdraw S24.  However by this time generation rent will be bigger, more younger people will be working in government, and the withdrawal of S24 will mean fairer and better anti-landlord policies, not fewer anti-landlord policies.  And many anti-landlord policies are not really 'anti-landlord', they're more "pro-tenant" and 'pro-society', which is not the same thing as anti-landlord.

 

These ideas require some digesting but first I just wanted to say it's great to hear from a landlord who understands the inequities in the rental market and has put some proper thought into coming up with actual alternatives to S24 rather just than bleating about how unfair it is. Hopefully the more intelligent, fairer-minded landlords will grow their influence over their trade bodies too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Father Fred said:

Perhaps this is me being optimistic but I really do think that S24 is unfair (not that it is going to effect me massively if my calcs are right), and also potentially very destructive in terms of repossessions, house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well), disruption to tenants lives etc etc.  I think S24 may well end up being used as a short term shake up of the system, to be withdrawn when prices start collapsing (destroying banks balance sheets) and too many tenants lives are disrupted Having got rid of the worst over-leveraged landlords government will withdraw S24.  However by this time generation rent will be bigger, more younger people will be working in government, and the withdrawal of S24 will mean fairer and better anti-landlord policies, not fewer anti-landlord policies.  And many anti-landlord policies are not really 'anti-landlord', they're more "pro-tenant" and 'pro-society', which is not the same thing as anti-landlord.

 

Life isn't fair landlord.

Do you not understand that yet with all your claims on multiple properties ?

So you've tipped back up to hide behind human shields, against S24 and any risk of HPC.

Enjoy S24 and eat a massive HPC.

Tenants lives have already been disrupted by BTLers buying up so many homes and contributing to HPI++++++.

Check the stress tests.  Major banks can handle HPC.

It's the BTLers who are taking the balance sheet risks.   The multiple-property landlords.  S24 all the way on you.

On 7/15/2015 at 7:27 PM, Bland Unsight said:

....One of the reasons I love this forum is that it is a place where the nonsense is acknowledged as nonsense. If you are going just regurgitate it here and not defend it, your claim to be balanced is a castle built on sand, (and presumably financed with an interest only mortgage and rented out).

By the way - you are really struggling to keep your argument straight. I've been having a go at you because your argument is just "It's not fair", and my counter-argument is "Life's not fair".

A number of other posters have developed the argument, starting out from the radical proposal that "Life's not fair", to include the corollary that an investment strategy based on assuming that life is fair is dumb.

You seem to think that the outcomes from the budget might resolve the question of fairness.

How the hell is that supposed to work?

All we'll learn from outcomes was whether or not the heavily leveraged large portfolio buy-to-let strategy can survive these changes (which were obviously designed to shut it down).

We may then separately discover whether or not the buy-to-let investor was the marginal buyer (I'd bet the ranch they are at these interest rates with MMR keeping the lid on owner-occupier borrowing LTIs). Following that we'll discover if the market is far more prone to over-correct downwards in the presence of a large cohort of leveraged speculators with weak hands and face-washing investments. There is no way the outcomes will have anything to say about fairness.

Shape up, buddy - or go find a kiddies table of your choice (Property118, Property Tribes, LandlordZone etc.)

 

1 hour ago, Patient London FTB said:

These ideas require some digesting but first I just wanted to say it's great to hear from a landlord who understands the inequities in the rental market and has put some proper thought into coming up with actual alternatives to S24 rather just than bleating about how unfair it is. Hopefully the more intelligent, fairer-minded landlords will grow their influence over their trade bodies too.

Yeah great.  

We finally have landlord perspective.... except more human-shielding it and 'S24 not fair'.

Red carpet for the other 'high-knowledge' BTLer yesterday too.  They need to prove their points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Forget the property ladder. We need real housing rights for all  
Started by Saving For a Space Ship, 8 hours ago

Agreed, but makes me laugh that 'real housing rights for all' draws out a landlord who wants to keep loads of his properties and finds Section24 unfair.

Hhiding behind human-shields of tenants having to move (landlord would always have sold under a tenant at some point, and have evicted tenants for more £rent many times over in the past), 

Claiming HPC = destructive.

 

5 hours ago, Father Fred said:

Background - I am a landlord.  Not overly leveraged. 

(1)  Security of tenure for tenants.  Make tenancy agreements 10 year minimum (no problem if you are a landlord - someone who is in the business of renting out property long term). 

It is Section24.  

Not your wishful thinking keep BTLers/LLs like you in top position with all the houses policies.

Values are found at the margin, and whole load of BTLers out there. 

@Patient London FTB alternatives to S24 and no whine about unfairness?  It is greatness of S24, and not his wishful keep it all policies without S24.  And no bleat about unfairness of S24?!  Did you read the LL's post.   Human shielding it.

2 hours ago, Patient London FTB said:

These ideas require some digesting but first I just wanted to say it's great to hear from a landlord who understands the inequities in the rental market and has put some proper thought into coming up with actual alternatives to S24 rather just than bleating about how unfair it is. Hopefully the more intelligent, fairer-minded landlords will grow their influence over their trade bodies too.

We need further tenant side tilt, but also Section 24 all the way.  

This multi-property landlord just another who thinks S24 is unfair and is dreaming of it being repealed.

Patient London FTB.... are you hoping for S24 to be repealed and for alternatives to S24 to keep the LLs in position?  

 Maybe you want more HPI+++ as well?

2 hours ago, Patient London FTB said:

Perhaps this is me being optimistic but I really do think that S24 is unfair (not that it is going to effect me massively if my calcs are right), and also potentially very destructive in terms of repossessions, house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well), disruption to tenants lives etc etc.  I think S24 may well end up being used as a short term shake up of the system, to be withdrawn when prices start collapsing (destroying banks balance sheets) and too many tenants lives are disrupted.  Having got rid of the worst over-leveraged landlords government will withdraw S24.  However by this time generation rent will be bigger, more younger people will be working in government, and the withdrawal of S24 will mean fairer and better anti-landlord policies, not fewer anti-landlord policies.  And many anti-landlord policies are not really 'anti-landlord', they're more "pro-tenant" and 'pro-society', which is not the same thing as anti-landlord.

The banks will be making money lending to younger people in a HPC.  The market will begin to clear.  Oldies will sell up.  Families will upsize.  HPC all the way.

S24 might not affect him massively, but may do if there is HPC.   Some of these BTLers see their LTVs shoot up, and values of their houses crash, if S24 squeezes hard.  And CGT pincer for many BTLers.  

S24 is perfect in every way.  It's a beautiful policy.

A few of us have passed comment on how we would have loved to have been fly-on-wall in the meetings toward its announcement (S24).  The power buzzing in HM Treasury and HMRC.

Some of us believing policy to S24 end may have been taken long ago, allowing the BTLers to double down in their greed.

Quote

 

How fortuitous to have such a wealth of weaponry
embedded in Affront space!

Might not this all, in fact, be a set-up?
Think about this; is this not just the sort of thing you would be proud to have thought up? Such foresight,
such patience, such attention to the long game, such plausible protestations of innocence should the
coincidence be remarked upon or revealed! I knowI'd be pleased with myself had I been part of such a
plan.

-Excession

 

There are many other interests in the market than BTLers/LLs who think fair-life is them owning all the properties in a housing bubble, and having a life creamed up with other people's rent money, with their multi-property 'portfolios'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Venger said:

Patient London FTB.... are you hoping for S24 to be repealed and for alternatives to S24 to keep the LLs in position?  

I want S24 all the way AND more policies in tenants' favour. 

S24 is here. There's no going back. I'm just happy to see a landlord suggest more ideas rather than moaning about S24. My choice of the word 'alternatives' was probably bad in that you seem to think it means I would be happy with such ideas instead of S24. No way!

S24 really is just the start of addressing the power imbalance between those who own and those who rent. There's much more to come, and to my mind, it's a good thing to see a landlord acknowledge it needs to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Patient London FTB said:

I want S24 all the way AND more policies in tenants' favour. 

S24 is here. There's no going back. I'm just happy to see a landlord suggest more ideas rather than moaning about S24. My choice of the word 'alternatives' was probably bad in that you seem to think it means I would be happy with such ideas instead of S24. No way!

S24 really is just the start of addressing the power imbalance between those who own and those who rent. There's much more to come, and to my mind, it's a good thing to see a landlord acknowledge it needs to come. 

 

Only because he doesn't feel too much at risk, and even then he sees it as unfair.

Housing rights for all?  

Yet his 'business' has been to buy more homes to rent them out, and he doesn't embrace S24.  'Unfair'. 

S24 + other measures, a-ok with me.

3 months notice after 3 years, + 1 year of rent compensation.  

I'm thinking 12-24 months notice + 12-24 month compensation. 

'Cap number of properties a person can own'.   No one forced you to buy up more than 1 home in the first place to rent out !!!

Quote

For me the line where I’ll not worry about making someone cry lies at them having two houses when I’m priced out of one solely because of a questionable pact they’ve made with the banks. The line at which I’ll start calling them scum lies somewhere north of two houses, (probably at three). It may serve no purpose to call a HLPI scum, but who knows? My instinct is that sometimes when somebody else’s moral compass is sufficiently badly broken, civility is a waste of time. You need to fight - taunting them might help keep your spirits up. I continue to question my instinct on that, but as argued earlier, I just need them financially dead. I’m certain I’ll feel no need whatsoever to dance on their financial grave, though a decent pint and a wry smile at the wake may be in order.

-A goodbye to all that buy-to-let

 

At anything more than one for me (unless special circumstances involved... work/family... where it isn't an investment HPI++++ thing).

He doesn't exactly embrace S24... seeing it as unfair and hoping it will be withdrawn after slight shakeout of other BTLers, and before any real HPC.

Are your BTLs/properties in a limited company Father Fred?

If not then you may believe you're in business of housing people (how many homes have you bought up along the way.. or did you build them?), but S24 is finding out the BTLers as mostly investors (unless they qualify for incorporation relief).

They are being treated as investors too, and finally having the excessive reliefs tapered down, and change to how they finance those investments for tax-purposes.

Anyway the good thing about S24 is BTLers look to their own position (like Fred has:...'not going to affect me massively if my calcs are right'), but what if prices fall because other BTLers not in his safe-safe position.  Then value of his properties fall too. :)   S24.

6 hours ago, Father Fred said:

Perhaps this is me being optimistic but I really do think that S24 is unfair (not that it is going to effect me massively if my calcs are right), and also potentially very destructive in terms of repossessions, house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well), disruption to tenants lives etc etc.  I think S24 may well end up being used as a short term shake up of the system, to be withdrawn when prices start collapsing (destroying banks balance sheets) and too many tenants lives are disrupted.  Having got rid of the worst over-leveraged landlords government will withdraw S24.  However by this time generation rent will be bigger, more younger people will be working in government, and the withdrawal of S24 will mean fairer and better anti-landlord policies, not fewer anti-landlord policies.  And many anti-landlord policies are not really 'anti-landlord', they're more "pro-tenant" and 'pro-society', which is not the same thing as anti-landlord.

 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Venger said:

Life isn't fair landlord.

Do you not understand that yet with all your claims on multiple properties ?

So you've tipped back up to hide behind human shields, against S24 and any risk of HPC.

Enjoy S24 and eat a massive HPC.

Tenants lives have already been disrupted by BTLers buying up so many homes and contributing to HPI++++++.

Check the stress tests.  Major banks can handle HPC.

It's the BTLers who are taking the balance sheet risks.   The multiple-property landlords.  S24 all the way on you.

 

Yeah great.  

We finally have landlord perspective.... except more human-shielding it and 'S24 not fair'.

Red carpet for the other 'high-knowledge' BTLer yesterday too.  They need to prove their points.

Venger.  Did you try reading what I said, not what you thought I said?

Life is not fair.  I advocate making it fairer using left wing policies. 

Part of me would love an HPC.  I said "house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well)".  It would be good for people who are priced out.  It would be good for society in many ways.  It would be destructive for some people and some banks and other companies.

I posted on this thread primarily to suggest that there are lots of things that could be done for tenants which are not S24.  S24 is there to punish individual landlords who use leverage, punish the highly leveraged and help tenants when landlords sell.  I would prefer that the law were designed to punish bad landlords, encourage less leverage and help tenants when landlords sell.

My post was prmiarily about what could and should be done to help tenants, not S24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Venger said:

Agreed, but makes me laugh that 'real housing rights for all' draws out a landlord who wants to keep loads of his properties and finds Section24 unfair.

Hhiding behind human-shields of tenants having to move (landlord would always have sold under a tenant at some point, and have evicted tenants for more £rent many times over in the past), 

Claiming HPC = destructive.

 

It is Section24.  

Not your wishful thinking keep BTLers/LLs like you in top position with all the houses policies.

Values are found at the margin, and whole load of BTLers out there. 

@Patient London FTB alternatives to S24 and no whine about unfairness?  It is greatness of S24, and not his wishful keep it all policies without S24.  And no bleat about unfairness of S24?!  Did you read the LL's post.   Human shielding it.

We need further tenant side tilt, but also Section 24 all the way.  

This multi-property landlord just another who thinks S24 is unfair and is dreaming of it being repealed.

Patient London FTB.... are you hoping for S24 to be repealed and for alternatives to S24 to keep the LLs in position?  

 Maybe you want more HPI+++ as well?

The banks will be making money lending to younger people in a HPC.  The market will begin to clear.  Oldies will sell up.  Families will upsize.  HPC all the way.

S24 might not affect him massively, but may do if there is HPC.   Some of these BTLers see their LTVs shoot up, and values of their houses crash, if S24 squeezes hard.  And CGT pincer for many BTLers.  

S24 is perfect in every way.  It's a beautiful policy.

A few of us have passed comment on how we would have loved to have been fly-on-wall in the meetings toward its announcement (S24).  The power buzzing in HM Treasury and HMRC.

Some of us believing policy to S24 end may have been taken long ago, allowing the BTLers to double down in their greed.

There are many other interests in the market than BTLers/LLs who think fair-life is them owning all the properties in a housing bubble, and having a life creamed up with other people's rent money, with their multi-property 'portfolios'.

I should not have mentioned S24 in this thread.  This thread is about policies to help tenants.  I can see that S24 might well help many tenants.  My point was that there are numerous things one can do to help tenants and first time buyers which are less of a blunt tool than S24. 

I will do S24 on another thread.

I said 'Cap number of properties a person can own'.   Venger said "No one forced you to buy up more than 1 home in the first place to rent out !!! "

Erm - cap on numbers being for the benefit of society and potential first time buyers.  I wasn't advocating it as a policy to help me!!!!!!!!

Venger said - If not then you may believe you're in business of housing people (how many homes have you bought up along the way.. or did you build them?), but S24 is finding out the BTLers as mostly investors (unless they qualify for incorporation relief).

I believe that I have invested in property, but that as a landlord I should treat letting out property as a business.  I will start another thread re: S24 and / or my personal circumstances sometime.

Edited by Father Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Father Fred said:

Venger.  Did you try reading what I said, not what you thought I said?

Life is not fair.  I advocate making it fairer using left wing policies. 

Part of me would love an HPC.  I said "house price crash (which would be destructive in some ways but a very good thing in many ways as well)".  It would be good for people who are priced out.  It would be good for society in many ways.  It would be destructive for some people and some banks and other companies.

I posted on this thread primarily to suggest that there are lots of things that could be done for tenants which are not S24.  S24 is there to punish individual landlords who use leverage, punish the highly leveraged and help tenants when landlords sell.  I would prefer that the law were designed to punish bad landlords, encourage less leverage and help tenants when landlords sell.

My post was prmiarily about what could and should be done to help tenants, not S24.

Yes.  Multiple times.

I think it's fair for HPC, and question multiple property BTLers talking about destructiveness of that.  (Although you did accept it also opens opportunities for others). :)

Offers hope even outright owner landlords (who paid down debt) will come to the market and begin selling (perhaps out of fear that if they don't come to their senses, other BTLers will begin accepting much lower prices and leave them with BTLs worth a lot less than today's price.  Few BTLers want to take big losses to the their mad-gainz)

Tenants having to move.  We don't need BTLers hiding behind human-shields about that.   If you were so concerned about that you would have refused to go into BTL in the first place, where tenants have such little security of tenure, and S21 two-months notice away from having to move on.

Yes to further regulation that tilts balance to tenants.  I like view of a Professor the other day.  Tenants should have the power to change their landlord in certain circumstances (not doing repairs), and the property sold on at much lower price to a different landlord.

Actually we have quite a tilt in better measures for tenants in recent announcements (power to bring in local authority for repairs and landlords can't serve S21 during investigation), but yes we do need much much more.   Priority is Section24, and far from breaking banks and stopped at slightest sign of house prices falling... HPC and clearing out many BTLers and HPIers.

1 hour ago, Father Fred said:

I should not have mentioned S24 in this thread This thread is about policies to help tenants.  I can see that S24 might well help many tenants.  My point was that there are numerous things one can do to help tenants and first time buyers which are less of a blunt tool than S24. 

I will do S24 on another thread.

I said 'Cap number of properties a person can own'.   Venger said "No one forced you to buy up more than 1 home in the first place to rent out !!! "

Erm - cap on numbers being for the benefit of society and potential first time buyers.  I wasn't advocating it as a policy to help me!!!!!!!!

I believe that I have invested in property, but that as a landlord I should treat letting out property as a business.  I will start another thread re: S24 and / or my personal circumstances sometime.

 

Probably best, except not the party-thread, with your hopes of S24 being repealed, and little HPC to your investment properties, with you in 'the business of housing people'. :rolleyes:

Cap.  I know.  Simply pointing out that you do not come with clean-hands now you want to help tenants.

Yes, BTL as an investment which by its nature requires some activity to maintain, carried out professionally (for no landlord/BTLer has 'amateur tenants').

Quote

The idea that you are somehow helping people is a complete fallacy.

It would be like me cornering the market in dialysis machines, renting them to hospitals at inflated prices and then claiming I was "saving lives".

You are simply a middle man in the chain between someone's income and the mortgage payments to buy the house.

At the end of the day the world doesn't owe you a pension, especially one funded by other peoples income while giving nothing of value back to the economy. 

If you want an income then make a real productive investment in something, start a business, get a better job and save more money i.e. do one of the things the people who incomes you arn't able to farm any more have to do.

You participated in the 'market-free-for-all' BTLing.   

You had a choice.  

If you really want to make things fairer, perhaps sell some homes.. give them away. :)  

Quote

 

@Exiled Canadian

I know of many people (I am one) who could easily have loaded up on BTL but have not done so out of distaste for making money through hoarding a vital resource and damaging the chances of future generations.  I would rather get my investment returns out of "win win" situations.

 

 

Yes I was triggered by your view of Section24 being 'unfair'.  

Life isn't fair.   Older cohorts sat on much of the HPI+ wealth and multiple properties (BTL).  

S24 is not about fairness.  You may have the answers on what you would have done instead of blunt/unfair S24.  Section24 is the reality now.  All the BTLers and their letters have not moved HM Treasury about it.  REALITY.   So S24, and I would welcome some of the other measures you outline tenant side.  Although HPC and see BTLers shaken out, with tilt back to homeownership is best. 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Father Fred said:

Background - I am a landlord.  Not overly leveraged. 

(1)  Security of tenure for tenants. 

(5)  Cap BTL lending at - say - 50% LTV whatever the banks think is prudent.

On point (1) I'm all in favour of something along these lines. Asymmetric notice and longer lets are very much needed.

On point (5) I'd say you're half way there. I'd go so far as to make it illegal to let out a property with any outstanding debt at all.

 

1 hour ago, Father Fred said:

S24 is there to punish individual landlords who use leverage, punish the highly leveraged and help tenants when landlords sell.  I would prefer that the law were designed to punish bad landlords, encourage less leverage and help tenants when landlords sell.

In the current climate you'll find plenty of people, myself included, who are more than happy to punish leveraged landlords. S24 isn't the best policy but with little other hope I'm fine with it for the time being. I actually think it's too soft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should say that Parkwell, but I was thinking just before I read your reply how I can see that many priced out FTBs and other tenants might well take the view that S24 is a good thing even if it brings carnage that spreads well beyond solely affecting landlords.  Decades of neo-liberalism and it is inevitable that people make desperate destructive choices.  (Brexit, Trump, possibly tenants in favour of S24.  To be clear I don't think S24 will be bad for tenants generally, and for many it may enable them to buy at a sensible price... but it is another example - IMHO - of a risky policy that those screwed by neo-liberalism are happy to vote for even thought it might harm them as well as the people they wish to punish.). 

Assymetric notice is a massive one.  Anyone who claims to be a landlord should be able to say to a tenant "you can definitely stay for 5 or 10 years". 

Venger - in 16 years as a landlord I have only ever once put up the rent mid-tenancy and have never asked a tenant to leave for any reason.  The once I put up the rent mid tenancy is on a property that has been occupied by the same people for 10 years and the rent has risen 5% in that time.  I bought my first BTL for a very very simple reason.  I don't trust stock markets or financial institutions and I do not trust government not to change the rules on pensions.  Government were encouraging BTL and I thought - so far rightly - that it was a good bet to provide for myself and my family as I got older.  My very simplistic thinking was that if the typical household spends a third of its income on housing then if you own three outright you can get by OK.  My plan was to buy buy buy and then sell off a few to pay down debt on the rest.  Unfortuntely prices continued rising so by 2003 / 2004 I was on places like this considering when the crash might hit instead of taking on more debt which I thought was too risky even back then.

Edit - S24 is VERY unfair for the simple reason is that it punishes those with assets and debt, but does not punish those who are very very rich and do not have debt.  S24 is effectively  20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property and debt.  It would be fair if it were a 20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property. I do not object to landlords being asked to pay more (though obviously I would prefer it if Mrs May were to give me a personal  exemption); I do object to some landlords being asked to pay more and the richest tory-est landlords not being asked to pay more because they do not have debt.  It is hilarious to see the P118ers whine about their mates in the tory party though... did they really think that the tories care about aspirational spivs?

Edited by Father Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one looks at the number of transactions in a given year and compares it to the total stock of homes it gives a good estimate of how long people go between homes (or the rungs of the ladder if you like)

Without checking the exact figures, if anyone wants to do that and post great, I believe there are roughly 1.1 million transactions a year and 28 million homes or roughly that. So 28 / 1.2 = ~25 years

We can speculate that if a FTB buys at age 30 then their next move is at age 55 and they do not move again. So for most people there is no ladder there is just a property step. Also this step might not be up as some of the annual transactions are down and many are roughly sideways. So I would guess that the property ladder does not exist today that most people who become owners just buy 1 home and that is it. That is to say the median homeowner only ever purchases one house.

That would probably sound true to a lot of folk on here however what might surprise people is that this was roughly true 20 years ago too. If you look at the number of transactions back then and divide by the stock back then and do the math it suggests there was no 'ladder' back then too that there was at most just one step

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Father Fred said:

Edit - S24 is VERY unfair for the simple reason is that it punishes those with assets and debt, but does not punish those who are very very rich and do not have debt.  S24 is effectively  20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property and debt.  It would be fair if it were a 20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property. I do not object to landlords being asked to pay more (though obviously I would prefer it if Mrs May were to give me a personal  exemption); I do object to some landlords being asked to pay more and the richest tory-est landlords not being asked to pay more because they do not have debt.  It is hilarious to see the P118ers whine about their mates in the tory party though... did they really think that the tories care about aspirational spivs?

 

I recall you from another forum

Its been a long time but iirc you have one rental in East London you bought a long time ago and were very left wing. I dont understand how someone can think doing x is wrong yet do it anyway.

I too own a rental property but I dont think its wrong to do so, if I did think it was wrong I wouldnt have bought and if I changed my mind mid way I would divest

The rhetoric about not trusting banks and pension rules so you had to buy a rental property does not work for me. Its like saying I think x is immoral but hey Im going to do it anyway

 

Once again I do not think owning a rental is immoral or wrong its just odd to find someone who does think it is wrong yet does it anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Its been a long time but iirc you have one rental in East London you bought a long time ago and were very left wing. I dont understand how someone can think doing x is wrong yet do it anyway. "

You recall correctly though things have changed a bit since then.  I am back because S24 and Brexit might be the trigger for a crash... having spent the last 7 or 8 years thinking we may have got away with it (decades of zero IRs, growth, inflation and HPI was my prediction, but Brexit and S24 change that).

I do not think that there is anything wrong with doing the best one can for one's family within the system that you are forced to live whilst also fighting the system that you are in.  I also am not opposed to some people being relatively rich and part of that being residential investment property.  I am opposed to massive wealth inequality, lack of security of tenure, inter-generational unfairness etc etc.  I could not complain if government spending on council housing made my [non]-job as a landlord redundent.  Society needs landlords - it would be better if they were all councils and HAs but they aren't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Father Fred said:

Funny you should say that Parkwell, but I was thinking just before I read your reply how I can see that many priced out FTBs and other tenants might well take the view that S24 is a good thing even if it brings carnage that spreads well beyond solely affecting landlords.  Decades of neo-liberalism and it is inevitable that people make desperate destructive choices.  (Brexit, Trump, possibly tenants in favour of S24.  To be clear I don't think S24 will be bad for tenants generally, and for many it may enable them to buy at a sensible price... but it is another example - IMHO - of a risky policy that those screwed by neo-liberalism are happy to vote for even thought it might harm them as well as the people they wish to punish.). 

Assymetric notice is a massive one.  Anyone who claims to be a landlord should be able to say to a tenant "you can definitely stay for 5 or 10 years". 

Venger - in 16 years as a landlord I have only ever once put up the rent mid-tenancy and have never asked a tenant to leave for any reason.  The once I put up the rent mid tenancy is on a property that has been occupied by the same people for 10 years and the rent has risen 5% in that time.  I bought my first BTL for a very very simple reason. 

I don't trust stock markets or financial institutions and I do not trust government not to change the rules on pensionsGovernment were encouraging BTL and I thought - so far rightly - that it was a good bet to provide for myself and my family as I got older

My very simplistic thinking was that if the typical household spends a third of its income on housing then if you own three outright you can get by OK My plan was to buy buy buy and then sell off a few to pay down debt on the rest.  Unfortuntely prices continued rising so by 2003 / 2004 I was on places like this considering when the crash might hit instead of taking on more debt which I thought was too risky even back then.

Edit - S24 is VERY unfair for the simple reason is that it punishes those with assets and debt, but does not punish those who are very very rich and do not have debt.  S24 is effectively  20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property and debt.  It would be fair if it were a 20% income tax surcharge on higher rate taxpayers who have residential investment property. I do not object to landlords being asked to pay more (though obviously I would prefer it if Mrs May were to give me a personal  exemption); I do object to some landlords being asked to pay more and the richest tory-est landlords not being asked to pay more because they do not have debt.  It is hilarious to see the P118ers whine about their mates in the tory party though... did they really think that the tories care about aspirational spivs?

All my family and renting friends will take the risk.

It can't be any worse than paying up to an older landlord with 5 properties (got enough?) valued at £400,000 - £500,000 a pop  now.

House prices today at X7.6 income. (The Times the other day).

And for some of them their employment will improve.  Bad deals are made in good times.  Some of us £work in sorting through messes.  Shakeouts allow new entrants.   We don't need the mastery of selective winners who can not be allowed to bear brunt of corrections/recessions.

BTLers having laid claim to 1 in 5 homes.

 

Few landlords can do that (10 year tenancies... and many a tale on forums on landlords having to move after BTLers promised them -verbally - they could stay long term).  It's junk.   And BTLers have chosen to get involved with insecure tenancies (BTL lending) so are complicit in it.   And read the BTL forums.  You're one LL voice who is for improvement in tenant rights.  Many other BTLers push hard against it ("I might want to sell my investment").

There are BTLers who have chosen to lay claim to 10+ homes via highly leveraged investment strategies.  

They could have been happy with 1 owned outright.  

No unfairness to it.   They've positioned as they've positioned.  Their BTL debt is their BTL debt.   I have no debt.  In fact I have quite a lot of savings.  So do most renters I know of, who have refused to buy in a market where many BTLers took the view that HTB means Gov stands behind the market, and went on a new speculation spree, buying up loads more homes to farm Generation Rent Forever.

And on level of fairness to would-be homeowners who have spent years being priced out by BTLers buying up loads of homes at viewings, and putting them on rental market?  

Where does that come into your unfairness against landlords/BTLers with claims on multiple homes and unfair Section24.   Life is unfair.  Section 24 is set to rip BTLer financial faces off without any mercy at all.

Even the former home of Alan Turing was bought and rented out very recently (£800K ish).   I looked it up at Land Registry.  Mortgage from one of those BTL specialist lenders with a gaudy name. (Not Sheila's Wheels but something like that... )

 And BTLers set to experience some of that 'unfairness' for once.  

Also it may be that as the most affected BTLers sell up/get LPA Receivered/Autioned off.... the outright BTLers see value of their investment properties fall as well.  So there is exposure.   

You're a LL/BTL.  Other people exist.  We can't have everyone owning 3+ houses.  Who do you think you are?   

If you'd been around here last few years you would have seen the view (repeatedly) that BTLers are dancing in to take risk away from banks in a HPC.  BTlers properties, their equity, their deposits, and their own homes, are there to make lenders whole in a HPC, and to see on houses at lower prices.

You encouraged yourself into BTL.  Don't blame Government.  Millions of other options were available to you in a market.  We have to take personal responsibility for our market decisions.  You and other BTLers chose to buy up millions of homes to rent out to others.  BTL has been unregulated lending.   Now Gov has changed policy to astonishment of many 'core-voting' BTLers.

As for not trusting financial system/bankers/pension... would ask you to read the replies to this BTLer below in this thread.   Especially dgul's and Neverwhere's.

On 10/22/2015 at 9:29 AM, Thsurer said:

As a landlord, with 7 properties that I have bought over 15 years instead of putting money into a bankrupt pension plan, I feel I only have three options:

1: Sell up. This will put seven families on the street or facing higher rental costs as demand falls. It will also turn my pension into a single pot of cash in the bank - and I don't trust bankers - and that's useless as a pension to live on, I need income

2: Raise rents. I need a pension. 7 properties currently equates to £1500 a month earnings after all costs. If I want to maintain that, then I'm going to need to add around £100 to each property per month. Given increased demand as other landlords exit, that could work.

3: Pay off the mortgage debt so the tax makes no difference. Yes, the very wealthy will not have any problem as they already own the properties. I don't, I have mortgages and the cost of repaying them is way too high, it's inconceivable I could pay them off. Unless house price rises keep growing until 2020 and then I could sell two or three to buy the rest.

The social outcome of this tax policy is simple: a contracted rental sector, tenants being squeezed for more rent and landlords paying it to the state in tax. Goodness help you if you are out of work, you'll be on the streets.

The thing is I agree that removing 40% tax relief is OK. I don't agree with mortgage costs being treated as income though. How many of you would like to be taxed on your residential mortgage? And if you want us taxed on mortgages as a level playing field, then level it out properly - no CGT on buy to let sales, same as residential.

The Government wants their cake and to eat it and the poor will pay for it. And all the landlord haters who are so happy now, will not be smiling when the homeless come knocking on their door and start sleeping outside their offices.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2015 at 0:52 PM, dgul said:

I'll throw you another angle.

About 10 years ago I was made redundant. I had a bit of a cash lump sum, and I could at that stage have invested it in property. With the standard level of mortgage:equity at that point I'd have had about 7 properties by 2007. Over that time I'd have had a reasonable income from rents, and I'd have made a capital gain on the increase in house prices over the 10 years (south east England).

Note that I'd have made no actual investment in the economy (the houses were there before, they'll be there after), and when things got sticky in 2007 I'd have been bailed out by the government.

Well, instead I invested it in starting a business. I bought equipment and used (some of) the redundancy money to give me a buffer if things got bad. Which they did in 2007-8 and I had to tighten my belt. I now make a reasonable income, employ 3 others, create real things in the economy that don't exist without my efforts (really - new products and no real competition, albeit in a small market) and the business is worth a bit on it's own (but probably not as much as the 7 houses would have increased in value).

Now you might regard your investment as savvy, and that I was a fool to create a business instead of buying property.

But what country do you want to live in? One where any extra money is invested in property, although little new property is actually created? Where the government has to intervene to prop up the property market, because so much 'retirement' money is stuck in property that there would be a catastrophe if prices reduced? Where businesses galore are created to support the property industry (lettings agents, cleaning services, etc), but where no-one is actually any better off than before?

Or do you want to live in a country that encourages investing money in productive enterprise, where property can be left to look after itself, and where businesses are created that actually improve the quality of life for people? And where, perhaps, the government can step in to support employers if the economy hits the rails?

Because it is the real companies that create value, not the pretend property investment businesses, which only serve to inflate asset prices and transfer wealth from one set of people to another without any actual benefit to anyone.

And you'd better prefer the real companies that create value, because eventually it is these that create the value that allows the country to stand up in the world and have the capital to support imports etc. There is no 'I'm all right, Jack' because if one set of the economy just gets income from doing nothing from the other set of the economy who works it's ass off supporting the first part of the economy - then eventually the economy finds it increasingly difficult to buy all those nice things from overseas (like, say, oil).

To get back to the original point - there is a big, long term picture playing here, and the sooner people are forced to understand that you can't rely on inflating asset prices (without any actual improved quality of life, or production of stuff) to support their retirement the better. And I'm afraid that you're part of that 'forcing people to understand'. I guess I'm a bit sorry, but it is more important that we can continue to live in a country that has a future.

 

On 10/22/2015 at 2:20 PM, Neverwhere said:

Not all pension plans are bankrupt and there are other investment options, you should think about taking them.

Then it was very silly indeed to enter into high risk financial arrangments with bankers by taking what would have been your savings and leveraging them against investment properties via buy-to-let financing from bankers.

When you put cash in the bank then it is protected under FSCS and, while you might not get the best return on it, you cannot lose the cash that you put in. The bankers cannot take you savings if they are in cash.

When you use your cash as deposit for a buy-to-let property then, if you are forced to sell at a time and in a manner not of your choosing, you risk losing all of that money and more. Gearing works the same way on the way down as it does on the way up, it magnifies price movements. If property prices decline then you can lose all of your deposit and then you keep on losing money.

Because you have chosen to enter into high risk financial arrangments with bankers you have chosen to put not only your savings, but any other sources of income you might have at risk. The bankers can force you to sell at a time of their choosing and thus crystallize whatever financial position your investments are in at that point, whether positive or negative.

Buy-to-let is an investment activity. It has no consumer protection. You have specifically chosen to put your savings into something where you have given up that protection from bankers and are instead entirely reliant on the bankers doing the right thing by you.

What's more that is the only reason that the investment decisions that you have made exist for you to make: the lack of consumer protection is what allows the bankers to offer you financially risky interest only finance and thus to be able to leverage your tenant's wages (via the medium of rent) to a greater extent than they are able to do so themselves.

The profits of leveraged buy-to-letters only exist because the bankers have gifted them to you. In exchange for profits of their own of course, not to mention a claim against all of your other assets and other income as well.

If you really don't trust them then it's probably a good idea to exit the unregulated business contracts you have with them, that you freely entered into out of choice and not circumstance and in which they very obviously have the upper hand, at the earliest opportunity possible.

As others have mentioned other landlords exiting won't increase demand (one less rental property + one new family of owner occupiers = no change in demand for rental properties) and will likely decrease the average wages of the remaining renters (as those who are in the best positions financially take the opportunity to buy) which is likely to put downwards pressure on rents.

Also rents are intrinsically tied to wages - bankers aren't offering anyone interest only loans to pay their rental costs - and so renters can only pay what their wages will afford or, in poorer areas, what the LHA will artificially raise them to. They literally cannot pay more than their wages minus taxes and necessities and they will likely rebel before that point. If you try to increase rents above the level that the local market will bear then you will simply end up with voids and arrears.

Whereas you don't own any of these properties. You are simply renting them from bankers, whilst risking your savings and carrying all of the risks on the bankers' behalf, and then attempting to charge a higher rent to your tenants. Note that if at any point the bankers demand a higher rent from you this does not mean that you tenants will be able to pay you a higher rent in turn. You have given the bankers all of the power.

Many tenants would prefer to be owner occupiers so a contracted rental sector would be a good thing.

Rent is not tied to landlords' costs it's tied to tenants' wages. What's more many landlords have very little or no leverage and so they will be in a very good position to out compete leveraged investors like yourself by keeping rents at a reasonable level.

The total stock of housing in the country won't change - former buy-to-let properties are not going to be demolished - and so there is no logical reason to think that a contracted rental sector would lead to any increase in rough sleeping.

Mortgage costs are not being treated as income.

If you think that they are then you do not understand the changes at all and I suggest you read up on them further. Rental income is being treated as income (and therefore increasing rents - if you can - will increase tax liabilities).

Finance costs are simply no longer a deductible expense, as with all other investments, though they will still attract a tax break of 20% that isn't available to any other investment class and so buy-to-let is still getting special and favorable treatment under the new arrangments.

All residential mortgages are paid out of taxed income with no tax breaks whatsoever, unlike buy-to-let which will still gets a 20% tax break against finance costs even once these changes are phased in.

All residential mortgages are subject to MMR and must effectively be on a repayment basis, whereas buy-to-let is still largely interest only and thus poses a potential risk to financial stability.

There is nothing that legally stops a buy-to-letter from owning their own home - indeed I understand that many bankers require this as an additional asset that they may repossess in the event of arrears and negative equity - and thus enjoying the tax arrangements available to owner occupiers.

What's more buy-to-letters are competing with first time buyers for properties, not existing owner occupiers.

MMR-constrained first time buyers who have been out competed on price by leveraged investors using high risk interest only buy-to-let financing do not benefit from the tax arrangements available to owner occupiers and so these are irrelevant.

The only tax arrangments that are relevant are those that apply to financing costs and first time buyers are still at a disadvantage as they still have to pay theirs entirely out of taxed income and with no tax reliefs, whereas leveraged buy-to-let investors are still going to be able to claim a 20% tax relief on finance costs.

There is a strong argument to be made that this remaining tax break should be phased out as well.

Sorry to disappoint but far from some irrational and emotive personal dislike this is simply an overriding conflict of interest: we (people in general) want to own the homes that we live in and you (landlords in general) want to own the homes that we live in.

Both groups can't reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement because the two positions are mutually exclusive: the more landlords get what they want (our homes) the more people in general are denied what they want (their own homes).

Unless you're all planning on irrationally demolishing your investment properties there is no reason whatsoever to think that the government being slightly less encouraging towards leveraged property investment (remembering when all is said and done there is still a 20% tax break on offer for such) will lead to any increase in homelessness.

Claiming that it will is both illogical and an implicit admission that your own fate - as a leveraged investor who has been, up until this point, profiting off the back of high risk deals that you chose to make with bankers of your own free will - is unlikely to bother anyone at all.

 

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RushRoad said:

If one looks at the number of transactions in a given year and compares it to the total stock of homes it gives a good estimate of how long people go between homes (or the rungs of the ladder if you like)

Without checking the exact figures, if anyone wants to do that and post great, I believe there are roughly 1.1 million transactions a year and 28 million homes or roughly that. So 28 / 1.2 = ~25 years

We can speculate that if a FTB buys at age 30 then their next move is at age 55 and they do not move again. So for most people there is no ladder there is just a property step. Also this step might not be up as some of the annual transactions are down and many are roughly sideways. So I would guess that the property ladder does not exist today that most people who become owners just buy 1 home and that is it. That is to say the median homeowner only ever purchases one house.

That would probably sound true to a lot of folk on here however what might surprise people is that this was roughly true 20 years ago too. If you look at the number of transactions back then and divide by the stock back then and do the math it suggests there was no 'ladder' back then too that there was at most just one step

According to Savills the housing ladder has lost two rungs since 2008. Owner occupiers made only 2.75 moves on average last year (including the first step) opposed to 4.6 before. Overall, transactions are still 25% lower than the 1.65 million average for the ten years pre-GFC.

https://www.ft.com/content/4bc48640-f056-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venger - I can see your point of view that I have taken two homes from possible owner occupation.  But I am able to treat my tenants fairly within the system - ASTs do not force landlords to put the rent up every year or regularly kick out tenants.  You criticised me for entering an immoral market.  I can hold my head up high and say that my current long term tenants are VERY happy.  And they know that I wouldn't hold them to the one month notice period if they had reason to want to leave immediately.  I have always told them I have no desire to have an unhappy tenant. 

When I have complained at unfairness it has only ever been in comparison to the very rich who are debt free and are unaffected by S24... I am not saying that I am being treated unfairly compared to the way you have been treated and are being treated by government.  Not least because I don't know you, but also because many in my generation, and most of those younger, have been screwed massively by comparison with older generations. 

Given your aims would it not be better if the S24 punishment applied to the debt free too?  Should anything be done to discourage multi-millionaires from paying cash for BTLs?  Or is the stamp duty surcharge enough?  I don't blame you for having no sympathy for landlords but why aren't you fuming that the debt free are getting off scot free even though of all landlords they can afford higher taxes the most?

Many / most people on P118 / Tribes etc comes across badly.  I have met quite a few of them over the years including one who ended up on the run from the police, one who was on TV ripping off tenants and three or four (at least) who are very high profile on those sites who have done nothing wrong as far as I know.  I cannot say that many of them are 'my kinda people'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in letter after letter from the BTLers to HM Treasury and MPs, most of them claim they charge below market rent / haven't raised rents for years, as the big do-gooders.   

They charge appropriate level of rent and not massively below it.

Together with human-shield positioning that they will have to hike rents / evict because of S24. 

It's HM Treasury you need to try and convince that Section 24 is not your best way, and all the BTLers are getting nowhere with it, using all the same UNFAIR arguments you are using.   You don't know anything about unfairness from my perspective, multi-property BTLer.

1 hour ago, Father Fred said:

Venger - in 16 years as a landlord I have only ever once put up the rent mid-tenancy and have never asked a tenant to leave for any reason.  The once I put up the rent mid tenancy is on a property that has been occupied by the same people for 10 years and the rent has risen 5% in that time.  I bought my first BTL for a very very simple reason.  I don't trust stock markets or financial institutions and I do not trust government not to change the rules on pensions.  Government were encouraging BTL and I thought - so far rightly - that it was a good bet to provide for myself and my family as I got older.  My very simplistic thinking was that if the typical household spends a third of its income on housing then if you own three outright you can get by OK.  My plan was to buy buy buy and then sell off a few to pay down debt on the rest.  Unfortuntely prices continued rising so by 2003 / 2004 I was on places like this considering when the crash might hit instead of taking on more debt which I thought was too risky even back then.

Edit - S24 is VERY unfair for the simple reason is that it punishes those with assets and debt, but does not punish those who are very very rich and do not have debt.

^ hello @Patient London FTB

And if the BTLers can't hack Section24 it just shows what failures they are.   Their investment strategy wrong.  Oblivious to political risk.

"Gov encouraged BTL" - man up.  You made your own choices.

Quote

 

BTLer 2015: Section 24 'fightback'

“Letter arrived from HM Treasury in reply to the one I sent over a month ago to George Osborne.

Basically says they don’t intervene in these decisions which has completely missed the point – Its the contract entered into that has been changed! ”

As you can see there is no sympathy at all as this is purely a business matter.

 

Quote


Digsby: I've just been musing on what it is that winds me up so much about the bleatings of this 118 bunch, and I think it is this:

They proclaim that the government have let their tenants down by forcing rents up, but it is they who have done so by putting themselves in a position where they cannot provide the services they charge for, which is fundamentally a security of tenure free from the risks from the ravages of house prices, interest rates, mortgage regulation and so on.

So an element of rental fees is insurance, and they have failed to provide that insurance by indirectly exposing their tenants to that which they should be sheilding them from.

They take these risks on behalf of the tenants, and a good landlord should themselves either be unexposed to these risks, or be willing to absorb them..

 

 

Quote

 

BTL: A strategy based on nothing other than a reverence of money, and a complete disregard for the havoc wreaked on the lives of others, both by running a very precarious business based on a neverending supply of cheap money to corner a precious resource, and also by completely discounting the potential for upheaval in tenants' lives if(when?) the money runs out.

She ought to be utterly ashamed of her overt avarice and the sooner insolvent chancers like her are systematically bankrupted, the better we will be as a nation.

 

 

Quote

Cry and Regret, on 22 Oct 2015 - 1:10 PM, said:

You're faux concern for the poor is charming considering your choice of enterprise. Debt-fuelled people farming. With friends like these...
   
Sell up, sociopath!

 

 

Quote

Neverwhere
Operation human shield. Except they can't find anyone else who will actually suffer* so they've had to make some up.
 
* Tenants already get messed around with no fault evictions (here's a hint guys, you should have campaigned hard to abolish these before people got this pissed off) so if any have to move because their landlord is selling up it's just more business as usual for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Venger said:

And in letter after letter from the BTLers to HM Treasury and MPs, most of them claim they charge below market rent / haven't raised rents for years, as the big do-gooders.   

They charge appropriate level of rent and not massively below it.

Together with human-shield positioning that they will have to hike rents / evict because of S24. 

It's HM Treasury you need to try and convince that Section 24 is not your best way, and all the BTLers are getting nowhere with it, using all the same UNFAIR arguments you are using.   You don't know anything about unfairness from my perspective, multi-property BTLer.

^ hello @Patient London FTB

And if the BTLers can't hack Section24 it just shows what failures they are.   Their investment strategy wrong.  Oblivious to political risk.

"Gov encouraged BTL" - man up.  You made your own choices.


Where have I moaned about anything other than it is unfair that debt-free landlords are not facing the same increases in tax?

Where have I said that this alleged unfairness is comparable to the unfairness of having been priced out?  [Getting into a hierarchy of unfairness is not something I wish to do but I would say helping those who need it and taxing the richest is an obvious start].

Those Dr Ros emails are priceless.  I am 100% on the side of the academic (the only one capable of coherent thought IMHO).

I love how P118ers seem to love HPCs cos they're buying opportunities and love rises cos they can MEW and are clever people presumable charging the highest rent they can, whilst also leaving themselves room to raise them further if their costs rise.  BS on a massive scale.

I can understand why you might be angry with me... and I am really not looking for sympathy.  I have come on here after years away because I am curious to see thoughts on how the market is heading.  I really thought we were going to have a crash 10-12 years ago, but from where I was sat it was a dip followed by inexplicable and utterly insane rises that can only possibly be justifed by a belief that inflation and interest rates are near zero forever and somehow we'll grind through for decades.  Brexit and S24 lead me to conclude that maybe we're not gonna get grinding nothing for decades, maybe the shit that should have hit the fan in 2007/08 will actually hit the fan this time.  I was sort of preparing for a crash 13 years ago, so I sure as hell better be ready for one now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   32 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.